Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Brinqa vs Tenable Security Center comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

Brinqa
Ranking in Vulnerability Management
43rd
Ranking in Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM)
32nd
Ranking in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management
16th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Attack Surface Management (ASM) (18th)
Tenable Security Center
Ranking in Vulnerability Management
4th
Ranking in Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM)
12th
Ranking in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management
1st
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
53
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Featured Reviews

RB
Allows us to configure the risk algorithm to suit our specific needs
I would give the easiness of the initial setup a seven out of ten. It can be a bit complex. Some connections are straightforward, but some take a long time. Deploying Brinqa took time, as it was done in phases. Initially, it took about six months before we started getting valuable data from it. Then, it expanded from there. The deployment began with a product demo and contract negotiation. We connected some data sources to Brinqa's cloud service, which was straightforward. We used the default risk ranking algorithm but faced issues with the dashboards, so we customized them to fit our organization's needs over a few years. We depended a lot on Brinqa for the deployment. We had some internal resources, but they lacked the needed skills, so it took time to train our two-man team. Initially, it required one person for maintenance, and they spent most of their time on it.
Md. Shahriar Hussain - PeerSpot reviewer
A security solution for vulnerability assessment with automated scans
Additional costs are associated with using the solution, as additional scanners are required for different endpoints connected to the Tenable Security Center. If Tenable Security Center could extract information from these scanners automatically rather than manually, it would enhance user-friendliness for customers. For example, suppose I manually conducted CIS hardening or compliance scoring in a separate data centre. These scores should also be reflected in the Tenable Security Center dashboard. Since the scanner is connected to the Tenable Security Center, the dashboard should display the direct scan results from the general security centre and the connected scanners. There could be unusual activities or attacks with the rising AI-related issues or threats that the Tenable Security Center could track in the future.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The most valuable features of Brinqa are its data integration capabilities."
"Initial setup was pretty straightforward."
"I like Tenable.sc's analytics and reporting. You can also configure your on-prem network monitors to talk to your Tenable.sc control panel."
"Feature-wise, Tenable Security Center is a very fast tool with many dashboards and reports, and it covers all our systems."
"I found the dashboard features very useful. It made it easy to track remediation progress. I could publish dashboards to remediation teams and track the progress on the dashboards."
"What is useful to me is being able to fulfill very customized scanning policies. In the clinical environment, because of vendor control, we can't perform credential-vulnerability scanning. And network scans, which I've done before, can cause a lot of impact. Being able to create very customized policies to be able to routinely scan and audit our clinical networks, while simultaneously not causing impact, is important to us."
"The scanning part, the agent part – that's the valuable aspect."
"It allows financial institutions to compare their vulnerability management to others in the same sector."
"The scans are the most valuable aspect of this solution."
 

Cons

"Brinqa could improve in terms of the speed of their service and resource provision."
"The reporting needs a lot of work on the template."
"The product could be user-friendly, and they could enhance the web application's security features."
"Tenable SC could improve by making the creation of the initial reports easier that correspond to our network."
"It's good at creating information, it's good creating dashboards, it's good at creating reports, but if you want to take that reporting metadata and put it into another tool, that is a little bit lacking."
"The GUI could be improved to have all concerns and priorities use the same GUI, allowing them to see all tickets, assign vulnerabilities, and assign variation failures to each member of their team."
"The web application is not very functional."
"The solution needs to improve the vulnerability assessment because we have experienced some challenges with accuracy."
"Its reporting can be improved. It is not easy to generate a scan report the way we want. The data is okay, but we can't easily change the template to make it look the way we want."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"Compared to other companies or other products it could maybe be a little bit less, but the price is okay. I would say it's not very expensive."
"We're able to save because we don't have to employ more staff members to help wit ht he scheduling of the scans, running the reports or sending them out to the systems owners. That alone is a big ROI for us."
"It is slightly more expensive than other solutions in the same sphere."
"The pricing depends upon the number of IPs."
"Tenable.sc is more expensive than its competitors."
"This solution's price is quite high."
"The licensing costs for this solution are approximately $100,000 US, and I think that covers everything."
"I would rate the pricing a nine out of ten, where ten is expensive. It is the most expensive tool my company is using."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Risk-Based Vulnerability Management solutions are best for your needs.
824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
18%
Retailer
13%
Computer Software Company
11%
Insurance Company
9%
Educational Organization
22%
Computer Software Company
11%
Government
10%
Financial Services Firm
10%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Brinqa?
The most valuable features of Brinqa are its data integration capabilities.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Brinqa?
I would rate the costliness of the solution at a seven out of ten. It is on the expensive side and there are some additional fees.
What needs improvement with Brinqa?
Brinqa could improve in terms of the speed of their service and resource provision. We felt they were somewhat slow in assisting us in maturing our processes. Additionally, we encountered some stab...
What do you like most about Tenable SC?
The tool's dashboard and reporting capabilities match our company's needs since we are able to modify the basic view to create a new dashboard, and it works out very well for our needs.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Tenable SC?
The product is somewhat pricey, reflecting its valuable features and status as a high-quality solution in the vulnerability management market.
What needs improvement with Tenable SC?
While Tenable Security Center is highly effective, there is always room for continuous improvements. The reports and plugins for reports and scans could benefit from enhancements. Overall, it is a ...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Tenable.sc, Tenable Unified Security, Tenable SecurityCenter
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation
IBM, Sempra Energy, Microsoft, Apple, Adidas, Union Pacific
Find out what your peers are saying about Tenable, Qualys, Rapid7 and others in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management. Updated: December 2024.
824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.